Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York City will charge drivers going downtown

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 700 posts

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#71

Post by thx-2718 »

raldi wrote: post #64
thx-2718 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a problem with doing that. Of course how you get public transportation into rural communities is a bigger challenge but we don't have to have society be based around the car. My issue is that the previous post said they would pay for public transportation and walkable carless cities through increase gas taxes and road tolls.

An increase in gas taxes and road tolls would make people drive less, requiring less road maintenance, traffic policing, etc, and allow buses to move more efficiently, freeing up funding that can then go into improving transit.

If your over all take home is lowering though eventually you don't have money to repair the sidewalks and the bike racks and so forth because no one is driving anymore to pay for it.

Or you raise the cost to ride public transportation or pay for those things from somewhere else (like property taxes).

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#72

Post by ZoomerCretin »

thx-2718 wrote: post #49
ZoomerCretin wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will still drive, just not in downtown areas.

If you raise the price of driving higher the the number of drivers lower. Will the increase revenue from the pricehike overshoot the loss in revenue from less drivers on the road? You've also effectively eliminated owning a car in the city. So now you're asking rural residents to pay for more expensive gas and more expensive toll roads while giving all that money to people living in the city. I have a feeling politic…

There's not a single state in the country where tolls and taxes pay for all road upkeep expenses. There's not a single state in the country that raises taxes and tolls automatically when revenue drops.

Very few people drive in the NYC area anyway. I think 30% of people? It's not a big deal.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#73

Post by seanmcdirmid »

raldi wrote: post #56
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t exactly true. Rich people have the resources to live closer to where they work, they are more likely to WFH, they can ride a bike to work often, or maybe even walk. Poor people often live farther away from their jobs, they have worse commutes, and the likelihood of accomplishing that long commute by mass transit in many American isn’t that great. Anecdotally, we are well to do, chose our house location to…

Do you have a citation for that claim? Here are a few refuting it: https://bikeportland.org/2016/01/25/low-income-households-dr... https://medium.com/100-hours/is-congestion-pricing-fair-to-t... https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/3/7/toll-roads-hurt...

I didn’t make a quantitative claim, just a qualitative one based on anecdotal evidence. I put about 1000 miles a year on my car, but I paid a lot of money to get to the point that I could do feasibly that. I’m not unusual in this either, a lot of rich techies go for urban car-light lifestyles if they can afford it.

The above studies seem to only focus on the poorest of the poor, and not the lower middle class. Congestion charges are going to hit people who are rich enough to drive but not rich enough to live in convenient places the most. There isn’t a binary distinction between rich and poor after all. Those links are pretty embarrassing actually, surely there are better arguments that this will impact rich the most than using the poorest of the poor as an example?

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#74

Post by thx-2718 »

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #72
thx-2718 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you raise the price of driving higher the the number of drivers lower. Will the increase revenue from the pricehike overshoot the loss in revenue from less drivers on the road? You've also effectively eliminated owning a car in the city. So now you're asking rural residents to pay for more expensive gas and more expensive toll roads while giving all that money to people living in the city. I have a feeling politic…

There's not a single state in the country where tolls and taxes pay for all road upkeep expenses. There's not a single state in the country that raises taxes and tolls automatically when revenue drops. Very few people drive in the NYC area anyway. I think 30% of people? It's not a big deal.

But we want to pay for tramways and bike stations and our nice carless city through raising taxes on automobile transportation (which just plummeted because of above policies).

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#75

Post by raldi »

thx-2718 wrote: post #71
raldi wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An increase in gas taxes and road tolls would make people drive less, requiring less road maintenance, traffic policing, etc, and allow buses to move more efficiently, freeing up funding that can then go into improving transit.

If your over all take home is lowering though eventually you don't have money to repair the sidewalks and the bike racks and so forth because no one is driving anymore to pay for it. Or you raise the cost to ride public transportation or pay for those things from somewhere else (like property taxes).

You seem to think the government makes money when someone drives a mile, but in fact it loses money — significantly more than if that person had taken transit instead.

The fewer miles people drive, the more money the government has available for other things.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#76

Post by thx-2718 »

raldi wrote: post #75
thx-2718 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your over all take home is lowering though eventually you don't have money to repair the sidewalks and the bike racks and so forth because no one is driving anymore to pay for it. Or you raise the cost to ride public transportation or pay for those things from somewhere else (like property taxes).

You seem to think the government makes money when someone drives a mile, but in fact it loses money — significantly more than if that person had taken transit instead. The fewer miles people drive, the more money the government has available for other things.

> The fewer miles people drive, the more money the government has available for other things.

Yes if everything else is kept the same. People's income. Business profits. Etc.

However you're overlooking the point spending on transportation infrastructure which is to get resources from one location to another.

People drive to work where their income is taxed. Businesses have things delivered to them to sell and have ways to get customers to them. So now the business is paying taxes. And people use that income they earned to pay for rent or own a home so there's property taxes.

Now let's just remove the way people get about to doing all those things because that would save the government money from spending money on transportation.

Oh great no one is going in to work. No one is going to business or shop. No one is paying taxes. But hey we saved a bunch of money by not building roads.

Please read that I am not opposed to changing our society to be less car dependent (obviously for the environment it is better)

I am objecting to the notion that you can pay for a carless society by just not paying for roads or by imposing taxes on cars more without raising taxes or fees elsewhere.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#77

Post by fellowmartian »

Tinyyy wrote: post #62
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having more money lets you buy more of everything. Yet you are only concerned about roads (which aren’t even used by the poorest segment since they can’t afford a car)? Why not focus on making something more fundamental to existence free, like food or shelter? Oh right it’s because it creates poor incentives and overuse (tragedy of the commons) exactly like we see with roads (and parking). If car drivers had to pay t…

Yea you’re exactly right, there’s a tragedy of the commons situation right now. You could either decrease the demand or increase the supply to fix this problem, and it seems pretty impossible to increase the supply (build a bridge across the Hudson? That’s crazy). So here we are.

Unironically I’d hate a new bridge across the Hudson around the Holland Tunnel, that area is the crown jewel of Manhattan and its seafront should be protected.

It’s also one of the few safe bike paths in the city where casual bikers would feel comfortable biking.

Additionally, we already have one Canal St in the area, we don’t need another.

Sorry for this small NIMBY rant.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#78

Post by raldi »

thx-2718 wrote: post #76
raldi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to think the government makes money when someone drives a mile, but in fact it loses money — significantly more than if that person had taken transit instead. The fewer miles people drive, the more money the government has available for other things.

> The fewer miles people drive, the more money the government has available for other things. Yes if everything else is kept the same. People's income. Business profits. Etc. However you're overlooking the point spending on transportation infrastructure which is to get resources from one location to another. People drive to work where their income is taxed. Businesses have things delivered to them to sell and have wa…

> Now let's just remove the way people get about to doing all those things

No, congestion pricing removes the obstacles slowing people down from doing all those things. Take for instance a plumber who still has to drive around. Yes, they have to pay the congestion charge, but they also spend way less time stuck in traffic and can probably bill an extra job or two that day. Same for UPS drivers, etc.

> No one is going to business or shop.

Actually, studies from all over the world consistently show that when you make driving less attractive, it's a net positive for merchants: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-13/every-stu...

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#79

Post by seanmcdirmid »

mc32 wrote: post #52
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t exactly true. Rich people have the resources to live closer to where they work, they are more likely to WFH, they can ride a bike to work often, or maybe even walk. Poor people often live farther away from their jobs, they have worse commutes, and the likelihood of accomplishing that long commute by mass transit in many American isn’t that great. Anecdotally, we are well to do, chose our house location to…

I was poor, I took the bus to college and work (there were times I'd have to add 30 minutes where I knew I'd have to leg it). It was an hour and a half with transfers. It's doable --you get used to it, just like tech workers get used to driving in from the East Bay into the Peninsula. It's no biggie. On the way home, sometimes you get off at a different stop to pick up groceries and then you're the one walking home w…

There are multiple levels of poor, like there are multiple levels of rich. Plenty of people are rich enough to drive, but not rich enough to live in convenient locations. It’s weird that, when I was going to university, many people would save money by living far off campus and driving to pay $5 for parking. The richer kids were living on or next to campus, and didn’t even need cars. Housing is expensive, and the American system has made driving unnaturally cheap.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#80

Post by analognoise »

mc32 wrote: post #52
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t exactly true. Rich people have the resources to live closer to where they work, they are more likely to WFH, they can ride a bike to work often, or maybe even walk. Poor people often live farther away from their jobs, they have worse commutes, and the likelihood of accomplishing that long commute by mass transit in many American isn’t that great. Anecdotally, we are well to do, chose our house location to…

I was poor, I took the bus to college and work (there were times I'd have to add 30 minutes where I knew I'd have to leg it). It was an hour and a half with transfers. It's doable --you get used to it, just like tech workers get used to driving in from the East Bay into the Peninsula. It's no biggie. On the way home, sometimes you get off at a different stop to pick up groceries and then you're the one walking home w…

Hour and a half is no biggie? Is that one way?

That sucks more than having a car does by far. Even the last part about "your arms ache but you get used to it" - how is that for disabled people? How is it for the elderly? An extra hour and a half - what about if you have kids at home?

Honestly that... Blows?

If the options are to destroy the environment or to have to take an extra three hours daily to commute, I choose destroy the environment - smart people will probably fix it with science.

I thought about it - why would I rather destroy the environment than reduce cars? Because it's a lie - there's clearly no shared burden. Like as soon as humanity bans all privat jets, the entire cruise industry, etc, then maybe I'd consider it. But as it is, it's just one more "eh the poors will get used to it" - meanwhile we don't ban major contributions from sources that are rich people's enjoyment or profits.

Post reply on HN